|
|

Tips on how to do a good journal review for a research paper
|
|
A. In general...
-
Don't be nasty or chastising (e.g., "the author is under a terrible misassumption…"; "the author failed…")
-
Imagine that you will be reading your review to the author in a face to face meeting
-
In general, do not criticize papers on the grounds of external validity (e.g., "does this generalize to all managers?")
-
Make 3-4 main points and then make a list of your small, picky items
-
A good review is between 1-3 pages
-
Things to look for:
-
Is there theory in this paper? Or, is it a fishing expedition?
-
Is there information gain from this paper or is it a conceptual replication?
Obvious extension of theory?
-
Are the results meaningful and worthwhile? Or so obvious as to be manipulation checks?
-
Are the operationalizations true to the conceptual variable?
-
Are there confounds?
-
Are there any process measures to support what the authors believe are the psychology?
-
Are there demand characteristics?
-
Never say, this should be published or not, etc. (that is the editor's job)
B. Morals and ethics
-
It is NOT appropriate to cite papers that you are reviewing
-
It is not cool to let someone know you are reviewing his/her paper at any time before or after, no matter what your current relationship with this person
C. Informal reviews (for colleagues, etc.)
-
Writing in margins is OK
-
But don't just say, "be clear"
-
On the cover page, make 2-4 main points; put details in margins
-
Get to the point without a lot of fluff and apology
|
|